Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Case Notes
Summary Judgment
An oil rig worker can sue for injuries sustained while living on the offshore oil platform. Hughes v. Pogo Producing Co., Civ.A. No. 06-1894 (W.D. La., Feb. 12, 2009)
Plaintiff worker sued defendants, the owner of a fixed offshore oil platform rig, an oil and gas company (OGC), and others, for injuries sustained when he fell from a ladder while climbing out of a bunk bed in the living quarters of the platform. The OGC, the successor of the alleged designer of the platform and living quarters, moved for summary judgment. Issues of fact existed as to whether there was design and construction control over the beds and living quarters such that the OGC could be deemed a “manufacturer” under state law. That issue also precluded finding that the OGC had owed no duty to the worker to provide handrails or a guardrail. However, since the OGC did not own the platform when the worker was injured, it was not liable under state law. Questions also existed about whether the bunk beds were corporeal movables prior to their incorporation into the platform, as statutorily defined. The defective design claim survived, and the motion was denied as to the issues of whether the OGC was a “manufacturer,” whether a duty was owed to the worker, whether the law applied to the beds and/or living quarters, and whether the beds and/or living quarters were unreasonably dangerous. The motion was granted as to the premises liability claim and that claim was dismissed with prejudice.
Summary Judgment
An oil rig worker can sue for injuries sustained while living on the offshore oil platform. Hughes v. Pogo Producing Co., Civ.A. No. 06-1894 (W.D. La., Feb. 12, 2009)
Plaintiff worker sued defendants, the owner of a fixed offshore oil platform rig, an oil and gas company (OGC), and others, for injuries sustained when he fell from a ladder while climbing out of a bunk bed in the living quarters of the platform. The OGC, the successor of the alleged designer of the platform and living quarters, moved for summary judgment. Issues of fact existed as to whether there was design and construction control over the beds and living quarters such that the OGC could be deemed a “manufacturer” under state law. That issue also precluded finding that the OGC had owed no duty to the worker to provide handrails or a guardrail. However, since the OGC did not own the platform when the worker was injured, it was not liable under state law. Questions also existed about whether the bunk beds were corporeal movables prior to their incorporation into the platform, as statutorily defined. The defective design claim survived, and the motion was denied as to the issues of whether the OGC was a “manufacturer,” whether a duty was owed to the worker, whether the law applied to the beds and/or living quarters, and whether the beds and/or living quarters were unreasonably dangerous. The motion was granted as to the premises liability claim and that claim was dismissed with prejudice.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.